This is a clip from a conversation with Sean Carroll from Nov 2019. Check out Sean's new book on quantum mechanics titled Something Deeply Hidden: https://amzn.to/2C6aCaf and his Mindscape podcast: https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/podcast/ New full episodes are released once or twice a week and 1-2 new clips or a new non-podcast video is released on all other days. You can watch the full conversation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNqqOLscOBY
(more links below)

Podcast full episodes playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOdP_8GztsuKi9nrraNbKKp4

Podcasts clips playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLrAXtmErZgOeciFP3CBCIEElOJeitOr41

Podcast website:
https://lexfridman.com/ai

Podcast on Apple Podcasts (iTunes):
https://apple.co/2lwqZIr

Podcast on Spotify:
https://spoti.fi/2nEwCF8

Podcast RSS:
https://lexfridman.com/category/ai/feed/

Note: I select clips with insights from these much longer conversation with the hope of helping make these ideas more accessible and discoverable. Ultimately, this podcast is a small side hobby for me with the goal of sharing and discussing ideas. I did a poll and 92% of people either liked or loved the posting of daily clips, 2% were indifferent, and 6% hated it, some suggesting that I post them on a separate YouTube channel. I hear the 6% and partially agree, so am torn about the whole thing. I tried creating a separate clips channel but the YouTube algorithm makes it very difficult for that channel to grow. So for a little while, I'll keep posting clips on this channel. I ask for your patience and to see these clips as supporting the dissemination of knowledge contained in nuanced discussion. If you enjoy it, consider subscribing, sharing, and commenting.

Sean Carroll is a theoretical physicist at Caltech and Santa Fe Institute specializing in quantum mechanics, arrow of time, cosmology, and gravitation. He is the author of several popular books and is a host of a great podcast called Mindscape.

Subscribe to this YouTube channel or connect on:
- Twitter: https://twitter.com/lexfridman
- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/lexfridman
- Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/lexfridman
- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lexfridman
- Medium: https://medium.com/@lexfridman
- Support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/lexfridman

You, as we mentioned, have an amazing podcast called Mindscape.

It's as I said, 1 of my favorite podcasts, sort of both for your explanation

of physics, which a lot of people love, and when you venture out into things that are beyond your expertise, but it's just a really smart person exploring even questions like, you know, morality, for example.

I think you did a solo episode and so on.

I mean, there's a lot of really interesting conversations that you have.

What are some from memory, amazing conversations that pop to mind that you've had?

Something that maybe changed your mind or just inspired you or just, what, through this whole experience of having conversations, what stands out to you?

It's totally unfair, but that's okay, that's all right.

You know, it's often the ones, I feel like the ones I do on physics and closely related science, or even philosophy ones, are like, I know this stuff and I'm helping people learn about it.

But I learn more from the ones that have nothing to do with physics or philosophy, right?

So, talking to Wynton Marsalis about jazz, or talking to master sommelier about wine, talking to Will Wilkinson about partisan polarization and the urban-rural divide, talking to psychologists like Harold Tavris about cognitive dissonance and how those things work.

Scott Derrickson, who is the director of the movie Doctor Strange, I had a wonderful conversation with him where we went through the mechanics of making a blockbuster superhero movie, right?

And he's also not a naturalist, he's an evangelical Christian, so we talked about the nature of reality there.

I want to have a couple more discussions with highly educated theists who know the theology really well, but I haven't quite arranged those yet.

I mean, that's, how comfortable are you venturing into questions of religion?

You know, I did talk with Alan Lightman, who is also an atheist, but he is trying to rescue the sort of spiritual side of things for atheism.

And I did talk to very vocal atheists like Alex Rosenberg.

So I need to talk to some, I've talked to some religious believers, but I need to talk to more.

How have you changed through having all these conversations?

You know, part of the motivation was, I had a long stack of books that I hadn't read and I couldn't find time to read them and I figured if I interviewed their authors, forced me to read them, right?

Now I'm annoyed that people write such long books.

I think I'm still very much learning how to be a good interviewer.

I think that's a skill that, you know, I think I have good questions, but there's the give and take that is still, I think I can be better at.

Like, I wanna offer something to the conversation, but not too much, right?

I've had conversations where I barely talked at all, and I've had conversations where I talked half the time and I think there's a happy medium in between there.

So I think, I remember listening to, without mentioning names, some of your conversations where I wish you would have disagreed more.

Well, that's a very good question because everyone has an attitude toward that.

Some people are really there to basically give their point of view and their guest is supposed to respond accordingly.

I want to get my view on the record, but I don't want to dwell on it when I'm talking to someone like David Chalmers who I disagree with a lot.

You know, I wanna say like, here's why I disagree with you, but you know, we're here to listen to you.

Like I have an episode every week and you're only on once a week, right?

So I have an upcoming podcast episode with Philip Goff, who is a much more dedicated panpsychist.

I think that I probably have disagreed with him more on that episode than I ever have with another podcast guest, but that's what he wanted.

Yeah, yeah, that kind of debate structure is beautiful when it's done right.

Like when you can detect that the intent is that you have fundamental respect for the person.

That, and that's, for some reason, it's super fun to listen to when 2 really smart people are just arguing and sometimes lose their shit a little bit, if I may say

There's a fine line Because I have 0 interest in bringing, I mean, maybe you implied this, I have 0 interest in bringing on people for whom I don't have any intellectual respect.

Like, I constantly get requests to like, you know, bring on a flat earther or whatever and really slap them down, or a creationist.

I'm happy to bring on a religious person, a believer, but I want someone who's smart and can act in good faith and can talk, not a charlatan or a lunatic, right?

So I will only, I will happily bring on people with whom I disagree, but only people from whom I think the audience can learn something interesting.

So let me ask, the idea of Charlton is an interesting idea.

You might be more educated on this topic than me, but There's folks, for example, who argue various aspects of evolution sort of try to approach and say that evolution, sort of our current theory of evolution has many holes in it, has many flaws.

And they argue that, I think like Cambrian explosion, which is like a huge added variability of species, doesn't make sense under our current description of evolution, the theory of evolution.

Sort of, if you were to have the conversation with people like that, how do you know that they're the difference between outside the box thinkers and people who are fundamentally unscientific and even bordering on charlatans?

And the further you get away from my expertise, the harder it is for me to really judge exactly those things.

Yeah, I don't have a satisfying answer for that 1, because I think the example you use of someone who, you know, believes in the basic structure of natural selection, but thinks that, you know, this particular thing cannot be understood in the terms of our current understanding of Darwinism, that's a perfect edge case where it's hard to tell, right?

And I would try to talk to people who I do respect and who do know things, and I would have to, you know, given that I'm a physicist, I know that physicists will sometimes be too dismissive of alternative points of view.

I have to take into account that biologists can also be too dismissive of alternative points of view.

I mean, it's hilarious, because I do have, I try very hard not to like have the same topic several times in a row.

I did have like 2 climate change episodes, but they were from very different perspectives.

But I like to mix it up, that's the whole point, that's why I'm having fun.

And every time I do an episode, Someone says, oh, the person you should really get on to talk about exactly that is this other person.

You're inspiring millions of people, your books, your podcasts.


Speaker 0: You, as we mentioned, have an amazing podcast called Mindscape. It's as I said, 1 of my favorite podcasts, sort of both for your explanation

Speaker 1: of physics, which a lot of people love, and when you venture out into things that are beyond your expertise, but it's just a really smart person exploring even questions like, you know, morality, for example. It was very interesting. I think you did a solo episode and so on. I mean, there's a lot of really interesting conversations that you have. What are some from memory, amazing conversations that pop to mind that you've had?

What did you learn from them? Something that maybe changed your mind or just inspired you or just, what, through this whole experience of having conversations, what stands out to you? It's an unfair question.

Speaker 2: It's totally unfair, but that's okay, that's all right. You know, it's often the ones, I feel like the ones I do on physics and closely related science, or even philosophy ones, are like, I know this stuff and I'm helping people learn about it. But I learn more from the ones that have nothing to do with physics or philosophy, right? So, talking to Wynton Marsalis about jazz, or talking to master sommelier about wine, talking to Will Wilkinson about partisan polarization and the urban-rural divide, talking to psychologists like Harold Tavris about cognitive dissonance and how those things work. Scott Derrickson, who is the director of the movie Doctor Strange, I had a wonderful conversation with him where we went through the mechanics of making a blockbuster superhero movie, right?

And he's also not a naturalist, he's an evangelical Christian, so we talked about the nature of reality there. I want to have a couple more discussions with highly educated theists who know the theology really well, but I haven't quite arranged those yet.

Speaker 0: I would love to hear that.

Speaker 1: I mean, that's, how comfortable are you venturing into questions of religion?

Speaker 2: Oh, I'm totally comfortable doing it. You know, I did talk with Alan Lightman, who is also an atheist, but he is trying to rescue the sort of spiritual side of things for atheism. And I did talk to very vocal atheists like Alex Rosenberg. So I need to talk to some, I've talked to some religious believers, but I need to talk to more.

Speaker 1: How have you changed through having all these conversations?

Speaker 2: You know, part of the motivation was, I had a long stack of books that I hadn't read and I couldn't find time to read them and I figured if I interviewed their authors, forced me to read them, right? And that has totally worked, by the way. Now I'm annoyed that people write such long books. I think I'm still very much learning how to be a good interviewer. I think that's a skill that, you know, I think I have good questions, but there's the give and take that is still, I think I can be better at.

Like, I wanna offer something to the conversation, but not too much, right? I've had conversations where I barely talked at all, and I've had conversations where I talked half the time and I think there's a happy medium in between there.

Speaker 1: So I think, I remember listening to, without mentioning names, some of your conversations where I wish you would have disagreed more.

Speaker 2: Yeah.

Speaker 1: As a listener, it's more fun sometimes.

Speaker 2: Well, that's a very good question because everyone has an attitude toward that. Some people are really there to basically give their point of view and their guest is supposed to respond accordingly. I want to get my view on the record, but I don't want to dwell on it when I'm talking to someone like David Chalmers who I disagree with a lot. You know, I wanna say like, here's why I disagree with you, but you know, we're here to listen to you. Like I have an episode every week and you're only on once a week, right?

So I have an upcoming podcast episode with Philip Goff, who is a much more dedicated panpsychist. So there we really get into it. I think that I probably have disagreed with him more on that episode than I ever have with another podcast guest, but that's what he wanted. So it worked very well.

Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, that kind of debate structure is beautiful when it's done right. Like when you can detect that the intent is that you have fundamental respect for the person. That, and that's, for some reason, it's super fun to listen to when 2 really smart people are just arguing and sometimes lose their shit a little bit, if I may say

Speaker 2: so. There's a fine line Because I have 0 interest in bringing, I mean, maybe you implied this, I have 0 interest in bringing on people for whom I don't have any intellectual respect. Like, I constantly get requests to like, you know, bring on a flat earther or whatever and really slap them down, or a creationist. Like, I have 0 interest. I'm happy to bring on a religious person, a believer, but I want someone who's smart and can act in good faith and can talk, not a charlatan or a lunatic, right?

So I will only, I will happily bring on people with whom I disagree, but only people from whom I think the audience can learn something interesting.

Speaker 1: So let me ask, the idea of Charlton is an interesting idea. You might be more educated on this topic than me, but There's folks, for example, who argue various aspects of evolution sort of try to approach and say that evolution, sort of our current theory of evolution has many holes in it, has many flaws. And they argue that, I think like Cambrian explosion, which is like a huge added variability of species, doesn't make sense under our current description of evolution, the theory of evolution. Sort of, if you were to have the conversation with people like that, how do you know that they're the difference between outside the box thinkers and people who are fundamentally unscientific and even bordering on charlatans?

Speaker 2: That's a great question. And the further you get away from my expertise, the harder it is for me to really judge exactly those things. Yeah, I don't have a satisfying answer for that 1, because I think the example you use of someone who, you know, believes in the basic structure of natural selection, but thinks that, you know, this particular thing cannot be understood in the terms of our current understanding of Darwinism, that's a perfect edge case where it's hard to tell, right? And I would try to talk to people who I do respect and who do know things, and I would have to, you know, given that I'm a physicist, I know that physicists will sometimes be too dismissive of alternative points of view. I have to take into account that biologists can also be too dismissive of alternative points of view.

So, yeah, that's a tricky 1.

Speaker 0: Have you gotten

Speaker 2: heat yet? I get heat all the time. Like, there's always something. I mean, it's hilarious, because I do have, I try very hard not to like have the same topic several times in a row. I did have like 2 climate change episodes, but they were from very different perspectives.

But I like to mix it up, that's the whole point, that's why I'm having fun. And every time I do an episode, Someone says, oh, the person you should really get on to talk about exactly that is this other person.

Speaker 0: I'm like, well,

Speaker 2: I don't, but I did that now. I don't want to do that anymore.

Speaker 1: Well, I hope you keep doing it. You're inspiring millions of people, your books, your podcasts. Sean, it's an honor to talk to you. Thank you

See all Lex Fridman transcripts on Youtube

Sean Carroll: Mindscape Podcast